The faint light of evolution

- I want to take a brief look at a famous quote (by Dobzhansky) in the creation/evolution debate.

Quotes and comments;

- If you've done any reading on the origins debate you've come across the following quote many times. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." [1.]
I want to try and refute this comment. (Let's say it doesn't make any sense to me.)

- The sentence as written is illogical and false. [A universal negative is an impossible thing to prove; and there's no warrant I can see, to put things in this kind of absolute form.] If it were written correctly it would read; ''To a materialist, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'' Why?

a. No one has the right to make universal statements for every member of mankind.
b. D. can't possibly know if his claim is accurate.
c. the 'light' of evolution may be poetry but I don't know what it means. In my (humble) opinion there is precious little 'light' shone on biology or origins by evolutionary theory. (In honor of such notions as dark matter and dark energy, I propose to call evolution theory dark light.) The 'light of evolution' motif is 'borrowed' from the Bible where wisdom is referred to as the light of God. (The idea is that we understand the world by the light of God's word.)
d. this statement assumes evolutionary theory is correct; an opinion I reject (and with what I consider considerable warrant)
e. the statement assumes no other explanation can exist; again, D. can't know this to be the case.

- In my opinion (contra D.) it's far closer to the truth to say, ''nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of creation." [I admit the veracity of what is confusingly called micro-evolution.] We might say rather, that the origin and existence of living organisms is best explained by the creation model.

- Why might this be so? In a nutshell, because the evolutionary model can't explain a great many things. (e.g. the origin of living organisms from inert matter, the creation of complex information, an account of sex, an account of human intelligence, an account of personality, an account of how 'progress can happen in the light of mutation and decay, an account of how all the information we see on earth now could exist in the first living organism, etc.)

Notes;
1. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in the American Biology Teacher, volume 35, pages 125-129.
The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by biologist Julian Huxley. - Wiki

2. 'Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on Earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. - "
- biblical creationists don't account for anything by a creationist myth, but by the historical doctrine of creation. (ie. they believe the creation accout found in Genesis to be a historical record.)
- his argument here seems weak. I don't see why ecological interactions can't be accounted for by creation (the creation of animal kinds by an all wise, all knowing God). This makes no sense to me. (I guess his god isn't all that bright, or has no knowledge of the future, or of how animals will interact.)
- 'The fact that evolution occurs explains the interrelatedness of the various facts of biology, and so makes biology make sense.' - "
- I don't see why 'interrelatedness' can't be designed. Isn't any piece of complicated software an example of interrelatedness? (The coding certainly didn't evolve.)

3. 'The notion of the "light of evolution" came originally from the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom Dobzhansky much admired. In the last paragraph of the article, de Chardin is quoted as having written the following:
"(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow — this is what evolution is.'' - Wiki
- I'm afraid I can't have much respect for anyone who took de Chardin seriously. In my opinion the man was a charlatan, and a misguided mystic. (i.e. he turned evolution into a kind of vitalistic god. e.g. we must all bow down to this god.)